TargetTalk

I was watching a You tube showing the new ISSF Finals for RF---very interesting and good viewing. Just to confirm in my mind were these shooters shooting in the 4 sec or 6 sec---time limit on the 20cm diam. "Hit or Miss" target set-up 9.7 zone. "Doc"

Not quite.

4 second shooting time.
50cm diameter black (25m Rapid Fire Target)
Hit is 9.7 or above i.e touching a nominal ring diameter of 124mm

Thanks for you reply David. I guess we don't agree with the "interest" and "excitement"---I think it's way better than what happened in the recent Olympis anyway. My Best "Doc"

Bob-Riegl wrote:Thanks for you reply David. I guess we don't agree with the "interest" and "excitement"

Far from it.

My "Not quite" comment was regarding the target dimensions.

From what I've seen I would agree with you; I thoroughly enjoyed it. That doesn't mean a lot though as I also enjoy watching AP and 50m, if only to see if I can interpret the post-shot body language. I'm getting pretty good at it.

My only concern about the new RFP Final is that I cannot think of a way of shooting it on paper targets. Every way that I have heard suggested, IMHO, changes the format, timing or shooter feedback too much away from the electronic version.

Bob-Riegl wrote:I was watching a You tube showing the new ISSF Finals for RF---very interesting and good viewing. Just to confirm in my mind were these shooters shooting in the 4 sec or 6 sec---time limit on the 20cm diam. "Hit or Miss" target set-up 9.7 zone. "Doc"

Do you have a link

Bob-Riegl wrote:I was watching a You tube showing the new ISSF Finals for RF---very interesting and good viewing. Just to confirm in my mind were these shooters shooting in the 4 sec or 6 sec---time limit on the 20cm diam. "Hit or Miss" target set-up 9.7 zone. "Doc"

Do you have a link ?

I wonder if anyone will consider the sacrifice method?

By this I mean you try to get 4 shots in the middle or hit zone in 4 seconds and not worry if about the 5th one so much.

It probably won't win every time, but then again no method will.

David, I was wondering the same thing myself. The only solution I can think of is to measure each shot with decimal scoring tools.

Personally, I think ISSF might want to consider going whole hog...to falling plate targets. Everything shot in 4 seconds, with the targets diminishing in size. Start with the 8 ring, then the 9 ring, then the 10 ring. Fast, easy to score, and telegenic.

Doc226 wrote:...Do you have a link

latest incarnation at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... rjU0vHhefg

lastman wrote:I wonder if anyone will consider the sacrifice method?

By this I mean you try to get 4 shots in the middle or hit zone in 4 seconds and not worry if about the 5th one so much.

It probably won't win every time, but then again no method will.

Already been thought out...
"LATE SHOTS -If a competitor fires a late shot or does not shoot at all five (5) targets in time, a deduction of one (1) hit for each overtime shot will be taken from the score for that series. The shot will be marked with “OT”."

Mike M. wrote:David, I was wondering the same thing myself. The only solution I can think of is to measure each shot with decimal scoring tools.

I don't think that would be a satisfactory answer Mike, especially with two shooters per bank of targets.

Having to stop to score/gauge the targets will seriously interfere with the intended continuous flow of the final.

I had thought about drawing a 124mm ring on the target and then scoring by telescope (and hoping not to get any gaugers). Even up to the first "drop-out" however you would have 8 shots on each target; too many for reliable long distance scoring.

I think we're all going to have to win our respective national lotteries ;-)

The only other solution would be to adopt the Biathlon approach. With a falling "plate" to indicate a "hit" or "miss". That of course means that a shot that would "nick" the 9.7 ring and score on "paper" or by playing with electrons---would be "out" with the dropping plate. Dave has it right---"Win the Lottery" become a benefactor and donate these Target Systems---I'm second on line behind Dave----"Doc"

Bob-Riegl wrote:The only other solution would be to adopt the Biathlon approach. With a falling "plate" to indicate a "hit" or "miss".

The problem with falling plates is that they introduce an additional, unintended, element in to the final; instant feedback to the shooter during the series.

The only way I can imagine doing it is to have a thick black self sealing rubber front target with a central hole 135.2mm in diameter.

Behind that hole, not touching the front target, you would have a rubber disk of approximately 170mm diameter.

Both the front target and the back disk would have “hit” vibration/microphone sensors. Any shot triggering the back disk sensor without triggering the front target sensor would be a hit. Any shot triggering the front target sensor would be a miss.

I have no idea how much it would cost to set up 3 banks of 5 targets, together with the required timers, electronics and traffic lights, but would imagine it would be cheaper than full electronic targets.

Whether it would be worth the additional effort is another question.

Back to winning the lottery I think.

Ah, but would that instant feedback be a bad thing? For the shooter, perhaps...but for the sport? I think not.

Mike M. wrote:Ah, but would that instant feedback be a bad thing? For the shooter, perhaps...but for the sport? I think not.

As a fan of the Air Pistol 5 Target event I too quite like the idea of instant feedback.

What I was trying to suggest however was a way to simulate (without full electronic targetry) the final we have, not the final we would like.